(Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if
he will make a statement on what progress has been made with the
Ajax armoured vehicles programme.
The Minister for Defence Procurement ()
The Ajax family of vehicles will transform the British Army’s
reconnaissance capability. As our first fully digitalised
armoured fighting vehicle, Ajax will provide crews with access to
vastly improved sensors, and better lethality and protection.
Maingate 1 approval was granted in March 2010. Negotiations with
the prime contractor to recast the contract were held between
December 2018 and May 2019. The forecast initial operating
capability, or IOC, was delayed by a year to 30 June 2021—later
this month—at 50% confidence, with 90% confidence for September
2021.
Despite the ongoing impact of covid, we have stuck by that IOC
date, but of course, it remains subject to review. By the end of
next week, we will have received the requisite number of vehicles
to meet IOC. The necessary simulators have been delivered and
training courses commenced. These delivered vehicles are all at
capability drop 1 standard, designed for the experimentation,
training and familiarisation of those crews that are first in
line for the vehicles. Capability drop 3, applying the lessons of
the demonstration phrase, is designed for operations.
We remain in the demonstration phase, and as with all such
phases, issues with the vehicle have emerged that we need to
resolve. We were concerned by reports of noise issues in the
vehicle. All personnel who may have been exposed to excessive
noise have been tested, and training was paused. It now continues
with mitigations in place as we pursue resolution. We have also
commissioned independent vibration trials from world-class
specialists at Millbrook Proving Ground, which should conclude
next month.
I assure the House that we will not accept a vehicle that falls
short of our requirements, and we are working with General
Dynamics, the prime contractor, to achieve IOC. Similarly, we are
currently working with General Dynamics to ensure that we have a
mutually agreed schedule for reaching full operating capability.
That is subject to an independent review, which we have
commissioned. This is an important project for the British Army,
delivering impressive capabilities and employing thousands of
skills workers across the UK. We look forward to taking it into
service.
That was a statement of astonishing complacency. We have seen
£3.5 billion paid out, four years late, and just 14 vehicles
delivered, light tanks that cannot fire while moving, and vehicle
crews made so sick that the testing has been paused. If this is
defence procurement that the Minister is content is broadly on
track, how badly has it got to go wrong before he will admit that
the contract is flawed? This project has been flagged red by the
Government’s own Major Projects Authority. The Defence Committee
calls it
“another example of chronic mismanagement by the Ministry of
Defence and its shaky procurement apparatus.”
Yet the Defence Secretary is failing to get to grips with the
failures in this system and failing our frontline troops as a
result. He is breaking a promise he made to them in this House
when he said:
“When it comes to equipment, the first thing is to ensure that we
give our men and women the best to keep them alive and safe on a
battlefield.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2020; Vol. 685, c.
556.]
He has been in post for two years now. Since then, the black hole
in the defence budget has ballooned by £4 billion up to £17
billion. Ministers are failing British forces and failing British
taxpayers.
Have the Ajax problems of noise and vibration now all been fully
fixed? How many personnel are under medical treatment following
the Ajax testing, and what are the conditions they are being
treated for? Can the Ajax now in fact fire while moving? Where
will the gun turret be manufactured? What is the full updated
cost of the Ajax programme? When will all these vehicles be
delivered in full?
This is the largest single procurement contract outside nuclear,
and it requires independent scrutiny, so will the Minister invite
the National Audit Office to do an urgent special audit?
The Minister says that this is an important project for the
British Army. He is right. The defence Command Paper makes it
clear that the rapid further cut in Army numbers is directly
linked to more advanced battlefield technology based on the Ajax.
So will Ministers now halt the plans to cut Army numbers and
focus instead on fixing this failing procurement system?
I had imagined that whatever my response, the right hon.
Gentleman would accuse me of being complacent. That is the
expectation I had and I was not disappointed. We are not in any
way complacent about our nation’s defence and security. That is
why we are investing another £24 billion in our defence and in
our security over the next four years. We are absolutely on top
of and getting to grips with our equipment programme and what
will stem from it.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. I can assure
him that I am absolutely focused on this project achieving its
IOC. I will not hide from him, as I have not from the House, that
we have two primary concerns: noise and vibration. On noise, we
have mitigations currently in place to enable a certain element
of training, albeit reduced training. We are looking at two
headsets that hopefully, within the next few weeks, will be
approved for use, further extending what we can do in terms of
training. But that does not get us to the root cause of the
noise. We need to get to the root cause of the noise issues
within this vehicle, be they mechanical or indeed electronic;
this is, after all, the first digitalised platform of its kind
anywhere. We need to resolve those issues.
We are concerned about vibration. I have to say that over many
thousands of miles of testing GD has not had the same experience
of vibration, but I absolutely trust the reports that have come
to me from our service personnel. We are determined to get to the
bottom of this. That is why we are using Millbrook, a world-class
proving ground, to check exactly what noise comes back on
vibration. It may come back with a good answer, but we await that
answer. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—I understand his
concerns—that we will not take anything into IOC until we are
satisfied that we are getting the kit that we require.
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman on a host of other issues
that he raised. I do not deny that we have serious issues that we
need to resolve, but there are a number of points where there is
a difference between what is certified and what the vehicle is
capable of. I can reassure him that the vehicle is capable of
going well ahead of 30 km per hour, but with newly trained crews,
a certification has been placed restricting speed, and I would
expect that to be lifted during the course of next month. There
has been a restriction in terms of going up over a reverse step.
This is a vehicle that is capable of reversing over a 75 cm
object. A restriction has been placed, and I expect that to be
lifted shortly too. This is a vehicle that is capable of firing
on the move. That is not something that we have certified it to
do as yet. We are working through the demonstration phase, but we
will continue to advance that demonstration phase. There will be
issues; there always are in demonstration phases.
We do have issues to resolve, but as I say, the key ones are
noise and vibration, both of which we are very focused on. I hope
that we will be able to get resolution on all these issues, but
it is what we are working with, with General Dynamics. It is a
firm price contract, so £5.5 billion is the maximum that is
payable, including VAT. Currently, we are at just under £3.2
billion spent. There is a heavy incentivisation on our suppliers
to ensure that they get this over the line. We are working very
closely with them at the very top level of their organisation.
The joint programme office was delayed by covid, as the right
hon. Gentleman will be aware. There were significant covid issues
in Merthyr, and they did brilliantly through them. We have a
joint programme office on the ground, and a combination of
top-down and bottom-up will, I hope, enable us to make ongoing
progress.
In terms of the reporting, as the right hon. Gentleman may be
aware, an Infrastructure and Projects Authority report has been
requested by the senior responsible owner, which was helpful.
These things are helpful. It is helpful that SROs and their teams
can speak honestly to the IPA and get proper independent
assessments. That was conducted back in March, and it has
certainly helped. I look forward to making further progress and
reporting back on that to interested parties as we resolve the
issues that are outstanding.
I reiterate that this is a first-class vehicle. It is the first
of its kind. It has an important job to do. It is currently
employing around 4,100 people across the length and breadth of
the UK. I visited Merthyr, and I am proud of what they are doing
there. We will, and we must, get this right and get it delivered.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
For some time, I have been warning the House about the growing,
complex threats that our nation faces. Over the next decade, the
world will become more unstable and more dangerous. That is why I
have argued for an increase of the defence budget to 3%, to meet
the integrated review obligations, but it makes the job harder of
convincing the Treasury, Parliament and the taxpayer when we see
so many errors, delays, cost overruns and redesigns.
The Ajax’s predecessor, the Scimitar, weighed just 8 tonnes, yet
Ajax weighs 43 tonnes—almost too heavy to fit in or be carried by
many of our RAF aircraft. As the Defence Committee’s report
underlines, there seems little operational logic to the Army’s
land combat operational capabilities. We are reducing our main
battle tank fleet. We are retiring all our armoured fighting
vehicles completely and replacing the Warrior with the Boxer,
which does not have a turret. I know that the Minister is
committed to revisiting all this, and it is a massive headache,
but with global threats on the increase, does he acknowledge that
we must do better?
There is always room to do better—I totally acknowledge that, and
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his comments. It
may not be 3%, but a £24 billion increase is certainly good news
for defence and something that was necessary. I can assure him
that we are focusing on spending that well and in the interests
of our armed forces.
The Ajax is going to be a real game changer on the battlefield.
It is larger—it is some 40 tonnes—and Scimitar was a different
capability, but my right hon. Friend would be the first to say
that things have moved on. There is the range of sensors and the
four dimensions that Ajax can produce, allowing it to stand off
from the enemy. It is a significant sea change. It has that extra
lethality compared with what went before and the extra protection
that our troops deserve. This is a vehicle that has an incredibly
useful role to play on the battlefield and as part of our
operational advantage. The emphasis on our suppliers is to get it
right.
(Angus) (SNP)
There is in the UK no shortage of MOD procurement debacles to
draw on, such as the £4 billion Nimrod MRA4 scrapped before
service or the Mk 3 Chinooks—half a billion pounds of aircraft
that could not fly low or in bad weather—but this
multibillion-pound Ajax failure sets a new low. The UK Government
have presided over a procurement project that would see soldiers
arriving late for operations in vehicles only capable of a
pedestrian 20 mph, with a human endurance range of no further
than 30 miles, and then unable to fight duty due to sensory
impairment and pain caused by these £3.5 billion boneshakers. Can
the Minister confirm that the sight system manufactured by Thales
in Scotland is working perfectly and is unconnected with this
broader failure? Where was the intelligent client at the heart of
this project, and where was the learning from previous
procurement fiascos? Is the Minister accepting personal
responsibility for this debacle, and if so, how does he plan to
atone?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wide range of questions. I
think he ought to be slightly careful in damning all defence
procurement. He mentions Nimrod, but I am sure he is very proud
to see Poseidon arrive in Lossie, and indeed the E-7 in due
course. I hope he is proud of the work being done on the Type 26
and Type 31 on Rosyth and the Clyde, and the huge amount of work
that is going through Scottish industry at the moment, including
Boxer. Again, Thales is employed on that, and I am sure will do a
good job. I have had no complaints, he will be pleased to hear,
about the sighting systems that are made, as he rightly says, by
Thales—in Glasgow, I believe, but certainly in Scotland. We are
going through the demonstration phase, and as an intelligent
client, the MOD is required to check everything we are receiving.
I reiterate that we will not take something into service and
accept IOC until we are ready to do so, and we are holding our
suppliers to account.
(Kensington)
(Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that we are fully committed to the
Ajax programme, with its assembly in Wales and huge investment in
the Union, and also its operational deployment in 2023-24?
Yes, we are absolutely committed to Ajax. We have come a long way
with this project. It was originally approved by Ministers of a
different colour back in March 2010, and in saying that I
acknowledge that it has been a long time coming. However, we are
on the cusp of getting this right and getting it sorted. There
are issues that need to be resolved—I recognise that—but we will
resolve those issues and we will bring it into service.
(Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As the Minister has said, in March 2010 the then Government opted
for Ajax in contrast to the suggested BAE CV90. This weapon is in
operation with seven armies, two of which are members of NATO. It
can make 70 kph and it weighs considerably less than Ajax. Is it
not possible, in all honesty, that a mistake was made when we
opted for Ajax as opposed to the BAE suggestion, which would
after all have been manufactured in Newcastle?
I would not dream of answering for the Ministers in the last
Administration back in 2010, but I would say a couple of points
in mitigation. First, on a tiny point of detail, this vehicle is
intended to be able to go at 70 kph, and the temporary
limitations are temporary for training purposes. On the broader
question, again it is a long time ago, but my understanding is
that they are fundamentally different platforms. The Ajax we look
forward to taking into service is the first of its nature to have
the digitalisation of the platform, with the enhanced lethality
and enhanced protection. We stand by the decision that the MOD
made, and we are very close to getting to IOC, albeit that we
have two significant issues to resolve.
(Redcar) (Con)
Can the Minister update us on how UK suppliers are involved in
the Ajax project, and does he agree with me that projects such as
this provide the opportunity to support British jobs in steel,
textiles and other types of heavy industry, while protecting our
troops on operations?
I am absolutely delighted to. There are some 230 companies, all
in all, as part of the supply chain. A lot of them had a tough
time during covid; I mentioned Merthyr, where General Dynamics is
based, in particular. I am very grateful for the work that has
continued on the project throughout. I had the opportunity to
visit one of the track manufacturers up in north-west Durham, and
there are many others around the UK; the hon. Member for Angus
() referred to Thales in Glasgow, and my hon. Friend the
Member for Kensington () rightly
referred to components of the electronics from Wales, so there
are companies around the UK that benefit. We need to learn
lessons from Ajax, but we also need to recognise that there are
so many great skills and fine companies across the UK that we
need to ensure are properly embedded into the land industrial
strategy that we will publish in due course.
(Chesterfield) (Lab)
Defence equipment is traditionally procured to do damage to our
adversary, but I understand that the Ajax vehicle has been giving
soldiers a risk of tinnitus and swollen joints if they were
driven at speeds above 20 mph. In addition, it is unable to fire
while moving. The Minister has just described it as a first-class
piece of equipment; the men and women of our Army had better hope
that he never procures something that he considers substandard.
In his answers so far, the Minister has told us that he is aware
of the problems, but he has not given us any real sense of where
the solution is or when it will be coming. Can he tell us any
more about when we expect the Ajax to be fully operational? What
progress has actually been made, as well as identifying the
problems that we are all aware of?
The hon. Gentleman asks serious questions. I just reiterate that
there is a difference between what a vehicle can do and what it
is certified to do. With things like fire or manoeuvre and the
speed limitation, we should not read into them that the vehicle
is incapable either of firing on the move or of going above 20
mph. That is not the case; it is simply that that is not what it
is certified to do at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman also highlights, perfectly reasonably, the
issues that I touched on about noise and vibration. On noise,
there are mitigations in place at the moment, and there are
further mitigations in terms of the headsets. When we introduced
Ajax, the problems occurred in using the standard British Army
headset for use in armoured vehicles; the concern that we came
across in testing the inner ear was that that was not adequate
for the task.
There are two issues that we are therefore looking at: the
headset and the noise of the vehicle itself. The noise can have
two components; it can be mechanical, but it can also be the
electronic noise generated by the aircraft that is communicating
with the headsets. I wish that I could tell the hon. Gentleman
that a week on Tuesday it will all be resolved. I cannot, but I
can tell him that there are issues that we are seriously working
through with the suppliers to ensure that we get there.
With vibration, General Dynamics has not had the same experience
that we have had, apparently: over many thousands of miles of
driving, it has not seen the same issues. That is why we are
going to Millbrook, which will have sensors all over the vehicles
to test where the vibration is happening and whether we can
isolate it. It may be resolvable quickly; it may not be. I can
commit only to telling the hon. Gentleman that we will do the
work and that I will ensure that people are aware of how it
progresses.
(New Forest
East) (Con)
It is encouraging that General Dynamics has been able to make a
vehicle work satisfactorily in the United States, so will my hon.
Friend confirm that the Government will not be rushed into
bringing this already much delayed vehicle into service until
these problems are solved to the satisfaction of the people in
the armed forces who will have to fight in it?
I am so glad that my right hon. Friend asks that question,
because it requires a very simple answer: absolutely.
Unfortunately, as he rightly says, there has been a long pattern
of delays with the project, but we are not going to take into
service something that does not meet our requirements. It is a
firm price contract; we need to have it right, and take it into
service when it is right to do that. We are not going to
obfuscate in order to do so.
(Rutherglen
and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
There are reports in the media citing the leaked Government
report on the procurement of Ajax tanks and stating that
“the problems were known to the army as early as 2017, but they”—
the MOD—
“didn’t admit them due to embarrassment.”
Does the Minister agree that it would be far more embarrassing,
and a failure in the duty of care to our defence personnel, if
the Ajax programme went ahead without finding the root cause or
mitigating these serious defects?
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to find the root cause of
the defects—that is absolutely right—or at least, we have to
first identify that there are defects and then make certain that
we have resolved them. I think that would be a fairer way to put
it, and that is what a lot of the testing is doing right now. On
when these problems first occurred, I do not think awareness of
them came from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority report.
I have been aware from social media sources of a suggestion that
the Army was aware back in 2017. That has not been my experience,
having looked into it. The concerns over vibration are a far more
recent occurrence.
(Ludlow) (Con)
As the Minister is well aware and has articulated well today,
this Ajax programme is a critical capability for the British
Army. When originally the contract was let, we did not have in
this country an assembly line capable of manufacturing land
capability at scale, particularly armoured capability. The
introduction of this capacity through General Dynamics into south
Wales is a very important part of the defence industrial
strategy, which he has referenced. It is valuable for the whole
House to remind itself that we are not talking in a vacuum here;
this is a capability that the Government in the coalition days
ensured was built in this country.
We were looking at a design that relied upon economies of scale
to bring a state-of-the-art turret, which was going to be jointly
deployed on Warrior, with a cannon jointly developed with France,
again with state-of-the-art capability and lethality. Can my hon.
Friend reassure the House that the cancellation of the Warrior
programme will not impact on the ability to deliver turrets and
cannons into the Ajax programme and will not add further delay or
cost increase?
My right hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience, and I
thank him for what he says about the production line. I do not
know whether he ever had the chance to visit Merthyr. He probably
did.
indicated assent.
He did, as I have done recently. It is an impressive factory with
impressive personnel doing a good job. We just need to make
certain that the whole thing fits together and works, and that is
what we are committed to do.
To reassure my right hon. Friend on the Warrior, I have seen no
evidence that the cancellation of the Warrior capability
sustainment programme should have an adverse effect on the
turrets for Ajax. Indeed, I believe I am right in saying that 58
of those have already been manufactured.
(Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May I also confirm that the Merthyr factory is an impressive
capability? The defence and security industrial strategy gives
Ajax as an example of regional levelling up, so can the Minister
confirm where the turrets for Ajax will be built?
My understanding is that those turrets have been built by
Lockheed Martin and are being constructed in Ampthill in
Bedfordshire. That is my understanding, but I will double-check.
If it is any different, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and
leave a copy of my letter in the Library of the House of Commons.
It is my understanding that that is happening at Ampthill.
(South West
Wiltshire) (Con) [V]
Does the Minister agree that the Ajax situation undermines global
Britain’s forward presence objectives as envisaged in the
integrated review, such as the ability of the Royal Dragoon
Guards based in Warminster to project reconnaissance combat
teams, which they were being re-roled for? If it turns out that
the vibration issue—[Inaudible.]
Mr Speaker
The sound is as defective as the programme. Minister, do you want
to try to answer that?
I am very sorry that we have lost my right hon. Friend. It gives
me scope to interpret his question. I think he was asking about
our capability to equip our recce troops. What we can do is a
needed step change. The vehicles we are currently using were
brought into service in the 1970s. We need that digitised
framework. We need those sensors. We need the four dimensional
capability. The programme will significantly help our armed
forces, and we will be able to deliver it at speed.
(Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister is a decent person, but this is extremely worrying
news. The idea that we have a vehicle that can go almost as fast
as a bicycle, but cannot actually fire its weapon on the move,
while also posing such a risk to our troops is very worrying. The
defence analyst, Francis Tusa, has described this as the Army’s
Nimrod MRA4. Is he right, and what does that say about our
defence procurement capability or, should I say, incapability?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his nice remarks. He is also a
very decent person, but I fear that he was not listening fully to
my earlier responses regarding speed and fire on manoeuvre, which
are capabilities that Ajax will be able to deploy. We are still
in demonstration phases, so we do not get the full finished
article; it is the capability 3 drop that provides us with the
vehicle that will be used on operations.
The hon. Gentleman is worried. I, too, am concerned that we have
issues. I would much rather have come to this place and said,
“All’s well; 30 June 2021—we’re looking good.” The fact that we
have tests on vibrations, which will not be fully reported on
until the end of July, speaks all one needs to know about that
particular date. We have been pushing and pushing, and it is
still possible that we will get a very easy answer. I fear that
it may take longer, but we will continue to work to resolve these
issues. However, we are spending £5.5 billion on a fixed-price
contract. A lot can go wrong in a contract. A lot needs to be
worked on with the suppliers, and in terms of the demonstration
phase, that is what we are going to do.
(Glasgow East) (SNP)
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the MOD has been
found not to have undertaken the proper due diligence with
respect to its hardware. There are serious questions about not
only this hardware, given the reports of potential injuries to
personnel, but the process through which it was selected,
developed and commissioned. Given tenders such as the Nimrod MRA4
and others like it, the British Government have billions of
pounds lying in the balance. Will they therefore commit to
reviewing how they handle such tenders?
We constantly look at how we can best procure. Through the
defence and security industrial strategy, we are looking at
trying to improve significantly the processes that we undergo,
including by having far more active contact with companies,
particularly onshore UK companies, in order that we are able to
work with them, and more agility in the nature of the contracts
that we undertake. There is a process in place to ensure that we
procure as best we possibly can, although, as I say, it is a £5.5
billion contract doing something that has not been done
previously globally, and it is important that we recognise that
issues can emerge. The critical point is to spot those issues and
then make certain that they are resolved.
(High Peak) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to investing in our
armoured fighting vehicles. It is vital that we never have a
repeat of a situation where our armed forces personnel are put in
harm’s way without appropriate protections. However, it is clear
that there have been issues with the Ajax programme, so can the
Minister assure the House that all steps will be taken to learn
the lessons of this and improve our defence procurement?
Yes, we can learn from all procurements. We learn something from
everything that is done. I wish this was a totally smooth
process. It has not been—from the recast in 2014, to the recast
in 2019, the delay to IOC and the fact that here we are, at this
point, with two significant issues that I still need to get to
grips with and resolve. We will have points to learn from, but I
gently say to the House that a demonstration phase is a
demonstration phase. We need to learn through a demonstration
phase and then apply what we have learned.
(Warley)
(Lab)
The Minister seemed slightly hurt that the shadow Secretary of
State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne
(), described him as complacent, and then he went on to
confirm that description. He talked about vibration. He took the
manufacturer’s word for it, even though the users found something
different. Talk about shades of “dieselgate”. He said that the
noise can be mechanical, but somehow, he does not seem to have
got to the bottom of where it is coming from. He said that Ajax
is capable of firing on the move, but somehow, it does not seem
to be able to do so at the moment. Do the troops on the frontline
not deserve something better, and does he not need to get a grip?
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points. On the
vibration, if I took the word of the supplier, we would have met
IOC and we would not have issues. I take the word of our crews
who have been training on the vehicle; that is why we have taken
it so seriously, why we have commissioned the reports that we
have commissioned and why the vehicles are currently at Millbrook
being put through their paces. I absolutely reassure the House
that we will not take the programme into IOC until we are
confident that we have achieved what we need to achieve at this
stage of the vehicle’s development. I absolutely stand by that.
The right hon. Gentleman also made points about firing on the
move and the speed restrictions; there is a difference between
the certification of rolling process, certification during a
demonstration and future phases, and what the vehicle is capable
of.
(Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
On the back of Army modernisation and the £24 billion investment
in the integrated review, there is a significant opportunity to
grow land exports. Will my hon. Friend confirm to me and the
House what export opportunities he expects to arise from the Ajax
programme?
I would very much like to see this vehicle as an export
opportunity, and I believe it can be. The noise that has been
quite rightly and legitimately raised in respect of the issues in
the demonstration phase is understandable, but it probably will
not help the vehicle’s export potential immediately. I hope that,
during the demonstration phase, we can resolve what we need to
resolve, and I would love to see a situation in which I can
confirm to the House that all is well, that we have hit IOC and
that we are going to proceed to FOC. Incidentally, someone asked
about FOC earlier but I did not come back to them: we are doing
work with Tony Meggs from the IPA to make certain that we get an
agreed FOC. I should have said that earlier, but it is now on the
record. I hope to get that sorted and then proceed to export what
will be a transformational vehicle in service with the British
Army to our allies and friends around the world, meaning more
jobs for this country.
(North
Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
In addition to issues with the Ajax programme, the Government are
still struggling to get on top of the massive black hole in their
equipment plan, with the most recent report from the National
Audit Office having found that it “remains unaffordable” for “the
fourth successive year”. That is another warning from the NAO
that has not been properly heeded by this Government, and the
plan is up to £13 billion overdrawn. What plans does the
Secretary of State have to plug the huge financial black hole?
With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, the report to which
she referred was published prior to the injection of the
additional £24 billion earlier this year. As a result of that, we
will be publishing an equipment plan that will add up. I
recognise that that will be for the first time in many years, and
under successive Governments, but we will have a plan of which we
can all be proud.
(Dudley North) (Con)
As a proud member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I am
delighted with the £24 billion investment in our armed forces
that was set out in the integrated review. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke () just said, that investment also presents a great
opportunity to grow exports. So can the Minister confirm what
progress he may have made with colleagues in the Department for
International Trade and what opportunities he may expect will
arise in respect of armoured fighting vehicles?
That is a positive point on which to end these exchanges—if,
indeed, this is the end Mr Speaker. It is absolutely right that
we should look at the land industrial strategy to see what we can
secure for this country. In terms of armoured fighting vehicles,
we have not only Ajax but Boxer, and there is additional work on
our Challenger 3 main battle tank. We have a lot of capabilities
in the land domain, as we have in respect of exporting ships of
various descriptions and the fantastic work that we continue to
do on Typhoon and the development of our future combat air
system. There is huge potential for us not only to defend our
country and keep us secure but to offer huge prosperity benefits
to all the people of the UK.
